Why Mr Wang Upsets People

I love psychology. I think that it is a fascinating subject. One of my favourite daydreams is to make a lot of money, retire at 40 and then go study for a psychology degree. Just for the fun of it.

It was during my DPP days that my interest in psychology first developed. I dealt with criminals every day. Many criminals are mentally ill or psychologically impaired. So quite often I would get to read all their psychiatric reports.

These days, my interest has veered away from abnormal psychology, into positive psychology. I'm also quite interested in the study of personality - for example, the Myers-Briggs system. The Myer-Briggs system is one of those very multi-faceted things. You think you've got it all figured out, but every time you come back to it, you discover something new. Either about yourself, or the people around you.

Recently, I have been thinking about the most common ways I upset people, and the kinds of people who are most easily upset by me. You can analyse it in terms of personality. The category of people I upset most easily are the Guardians (the SJ family, meaning the ISFJs, ESFJs, ISTJs and ESTJs). Unfortunately the Guardians are quite common - they comprise about 40 to 45% of the population. Whereas my own category - the Rationals - are estimated at 5 to 7%. So I'm outnumbered.

Why would conflicts arise between the Rationals and the Guardians? Essentially, Guardians are defenders of the status quo. They like things to stay the same. They seek to conform, they follow rules, they administer procedures, they respect tradition, they are the loyal, practical workers, the round pegs in the round holes, the reliable little cogs in the wheels that keep the world turning. Here, for example, is Keirsey's description of Supervisor Guardians (one of the sub-categories):

Supervisor Guardians are squarely on the side of rules and procedures, and they can be quite serious about seeing to it that others toe the mark-or else face the consequences ...

Like all the Guardians, Supervisors worry a good deal about society falling apart, morality decaying, standards being undermined, traditions being lost, and they do all they can to preserve and to extend the institutions that embody social order. Supervisors are so in tune with the established institutions and ways of behaving within those institutions, that they have a hard time understanding those who might wish to abandon or radically change them.

The Rationals, on the other hand, are the change agents of the world. They are constantly exploring new ideas. They are the inventors and the innovators. They have an intuitive understanding of complex systems and are constantly driven to create improvements. Preserving what is, is of no interest to Rationals, because their powers of imagination tell them about what could be, and they see that things usually can be a lot better. Here for example is Keirsey's description of the Mastermind (one of the Rational sub-categories, aka INTJs, which is my personality type):

To the Mastermind, organizational structure and operational procedures are never arbitrary, never set in concrete, but are quite malleable and can be changed, improved, streamlined. In their drive for efficient action, Masterminds are the most open-minded of all the types. No idea is too far-fetched to be entertained-if it is useful. Masterminds are natural brainstormers, always open to new concepts and, in fact, aggressively seeking them. They are also alert to the consequences of applying new ideas or positions. Theories which cannot be made to work are quickly discarded by the Masterminds.

You can pretty much predict how a typical Rational-vs- Guardian disagreement would arise.

First, there would be a System. Rationals are naturally gifted at understanding systems, so they know how to step out of the System, look at it from different perspectives, and see how everything fits together. As the Rational's mind is always geared towards making improvements, he immediately zooms in on the flaws in the System and says, "This is bad, that is out-dated, this is irrational, that is wrong. All of these things must change - how can we allow this situation to continue?!". Because the Rational is both analytical and creative, he has no problems pointing out the flaws AND proposing a dozen new ideas to fix the flaws.

Then the Guardians get upset. Guardians don't like change. They are comfortable with what is, and they are afraid of what could be. They get angry with the Rationals and wish that the Rationals would just go away. For example, they might say, "Oh if you are so unhappy with Singapore, why don't you just leave and don't come back." Guardians are also loyal, dedicated followers, and they view the Rationals' ideas for improvement as disrespectful to the establishment and to tradition. So for example, the Guardians might say: "How dare you criticise the PAP? They have done so much for us, in the past 40 years."

Guardians desperately want the system to stay the same; so in a debate, they will keep making any argument they can, to keep the system the same, whether or not they really believe in that particular argument. For example, in order to keep homosexuality criminalised, they will argue that it is "unreasonable", "uncivilised", "unnatural", "worsening the aging population", "psychologically disordered", "immoral", "makes me afraid of getting raped by a man", "abnormal", "disgusting", "the law says it's wrong, so it must be wrong", "it disgusts me even if it happens in private and I don't know about it", and finally, even "I am entitled to be irrational in my hate for gays".

Another example is Edmund Khoo's letter. You can see that Edmund's overpowering motivation is to support Lee Hsien Loong. As I've mentioned, on that particular topic, it's possible to support or not support PM Lee, but whatever side a Rational takes, it will be on a rational basis. A Guardian, however, is more likely to take a position first (and as a result of his loyalty tendencies, he will tend to support the incumbent), and then simply make as many arguments as he can possibly think of, to support his leader (whether or not the arguments actually make sense).

I've generalised a lot. But if you read my blog and the comments, you'll note that very often, when readers disagree with me, the Rational-Guardian pattern seems to be at work. Guardians endlessly seek to guard the System from change; while Rationals endlessly seek to change the System to make it better. I, as INTJ, would be the Rational, while most of my regular critics, I suspect, are Guardians (the SF family).

These are the subtle patterns in our minds, the natural processes in our different brains that govern how we think and feel about approximately anything. Psychology is sooooo interesting.

See What I Mean?

The young man in the wheelchair is Lawrence Leow. He suffered a tragic incident during his NS training.

Lawrence is now paralysed and he can't talk either. His condition is probably permanent. The Ministry of Defence is "compensating" him with a grand total of $500 per month.

Lawrence, who communicates by using small finger movements to type out words on a digital pad or handphone, wrote: "The $500 is not even enough for me to hire a maid!".

This case illustrates one of the points I made, back in September 2006. I wrote:

"Singapore forces its young men into military service, which in turn necessarily entails some degree of risk of death or injury. It is bizarre to me that the SAF has no standard insurance plan in place for NSFs. I think that it is only reasonable that the SAF buys life, disability and personal accident insurance for NSFs (at least for those in combat vocations, and for something significantly more than a few thousand dollars). In fact, the coverage should extend to active NSmen as well. As a fringe benefit, NSmen should have the option of continuing with the coverage (and paying for it themselves), when their NS liability is completed."

If you would like to help Lawrence in any way, please click here and contact his friend Edmund Ng.

Our Honorary Citizen

This man is Dr Heinrich von Pierer. Until quite recently, he was Board Chairman of Siemens AG, one of Germany's best-known companies. Then he resigned amidst a corruption scandal that has already been going on for quite some time:

Siemens chairman Heinrich von Pierer resigns

MUNICH, Germany — Amidst rising pressure in the context of ongoing bribery allegations against Siemens top managers, the company's long-time CEO Heinrich von Pierer has announced to vacate his present position as supervisory board chairman. However, von Pierer pointed out that there is no connection to the investigations.

Von Pierer, who was CEO and President of the industrial conglomerate over most of the time the alleged contraventions have happened, announced Thursday night (April 19) he will step down as chairman of the supervisory board with the beginning of the next board meeting scheduled for April 25.

Though von Pierer always denied any involvement in the recent scandals, many observers see the move as a result of the ongoing discussions over his role in this affairs and the rising pressure to step back.

The scandal series took its start when in autumn 2006, police raided the Siemens headquarters over bribery allegations - according to the reproaches, the company in the past years had spent up to €420 million (about $567 million) to bribe potential customers in order to receive orders.

Another scandal came to daylight recently, when managing board member Johannes Feldmayer was arrested over embezzlement allegations: Feldmayer is said to have funded an 'independent' anti-union group in the Siemens works council with €15 million (about $20 million), which is a criminal
offense.

On the bright side, if life gets too unpleasant in Germany for Heinrich, he can always come to Singapore to live. After all, just six weeks before Heinrich resigned from Siemens, President SR Nathan made him an Honorary Citizen of Singapore.

The Honorary Citizen Award is the highest form of national recognition that the Singapore government can give a non-Singaporean. Honorary Citizens (and their family members) get the right to live and work in Singapore and to purchase property if they decide to stay here.

Makes you wonder how the Singapore government picks its Honorary Citizens, doesn't it?

Mr Wang's Exam Surprises

While studying for my CMFAS exams, I had two surprises.

My first surprise was that the CMFAS syllabus requires students to study the rules on who is required to take the CMFAS exams. This is an examinable topic.

'Well, now, isn't that silly?" I thought. "If you are already studying for the CMFAS exams, surely you must be required to take them."

My second surprise came shortly thereafter. While studying this topic, I discovered that I am not actually required to take and pass the CMFAS exams. In other words, these exams should not be compulsory for me.

Duh!

Generally if your job is to provide "financial advisory services" to the average client in Singapore, you will need to take the exams. But:

(1) most of my clients are not even in Singapore,
(2) they are all "accredited investors", in other words, sophisticated investors with high net worth, not your average HDB grandmother ; and
(3) I do not advise my clients on anything.

My typical client is a hedge fund or a bank. In fact, every document that I send to my client contains "big boy" language. In this industry, "big boy" language means language that makes it clear that both sides are sophisticated parties; both sides are able to understand and assess the risks for themselves; and neither side is advising nor relying on any advice from the other side.

But since I have already been registered for the CMFAS exams, I'll just take them anyway. Even. Though. I. Really. Shouldn't. Have. To.

This is annoying.

Self-Delusion

ST Forum May 11, 2007
Singapore stance correct on global war on terror

I REFER to the letter, 'Singapore's stance may offend friendly nations' (ST, May9), by Mr Retnam Thillainathan. The writer is alarmed at Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong expressing his strong support for the United States' continued presence in Iraq, as he is afraid of a backlash from other countries against the occupation.

As a dynamic and pragmatic politician, PM Lee will surely be well acquainted with the reasons put forth by President George W. Bush to justify the rationale for war. These include ending Saddam Hussein's almost 40 years of human rights abuse; his track record of waging wars against his neighbours such as Iran and Kuwait; his production of weapons of mass destruction; his use of chemical weapons on Kurdish and Iranian civilians; his proven contacts with terrorist groups in the past; and warnings from Russia that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks against the US before 2003.

Among the other reasons are protecting the United States' allies in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait; helping Iraq's transition to democratic self-rule; ending sanctions against Iraq (which hurt civilians the most); and delivering humanitarian support after the end of these sanctions.

The invasion of Iraq was touted by the US as part of the global war on error, launched as a result of the Sept 11, 2001 attacks. As a staunch ally of the US and knowing that Singapore, an iconic global city, is an attractive target for terrorists, PM Lee has clearly made his stand on the war on terror.

In Iraq, the government, police and military are unlikely to restore law and order any time soon. Bombings, murders and kidnappings continue to take place daily. A complete pullout of US soldiers will surely plunge the country into anarchy and civil war.

A fledgling nation's transition to self-rule, already in motion, will take time after nearly 40 years of tyranny.

I applaud our PM for boldly coming out in support of one of our staunchest allies. It sends a strong signal to the international community that Singapore is a sovereign nation, which does not bend in the direction of the wind generated by other friendly countries, and we have a leader who is not afraid to speak his mind.

Edmund Khoo Kim Hock

Should the US stay on in Iraq? And should Singapore express support for the US, if the US chose to do so? You could argue these questions either way, and either way, there is room for reasonable, intelligent arguments. Edmund Khoo's arguments, however, are severely misguided.

If I were PM Lee, I'd cringe. I would prefer to have no readers writing to the press to support me, than to have a reader like Edmund Khoo writing to the press to support me with such embarrassingly mistaken arguments.

I feel a bit exhausted looking at Edmund's letter. It makes so many errors I don't know where to start correcting them. History is so badly twisted in his letter that it doesn't even feel like history anymore, more like a tale from a parallel universe in a science fiction novel.

I feel like a teacher confronted with the ultimate F essay, an essay written by a student so stupid it's wrong to want to smack his head. I think I'll take the easy way out and let Jimmy Mun do the talking.